General Remark:
All amendments which have been discussed are included in the “consolidated document” ACSF-06-28. The jointly agreed parts of the document are marked in green letters. Amendments, which have been discussed, but finally rejected are removed/excluded from the document. The consolidated document reflects the latest stage of discussion within the group.

ACSF-06-28 | Consolidated draft amendment to enable the approval of ACSF > 10 km/h under UN Regulation No. 79 Draft amendment pursuant to the 6th ACSF informal group session

The agenda was adopted and confirmed by the delegates without amendments..

ACSF-06-02 | Draft agenda for the 6th ACSF informal group session

The report of the 5 th Session was approved by the delegates.

ACSF-05-17 | Draft report of the 5th ACSF informal group session

Germany presented a summary of the major issues to be clarified during this meeting. Germany proposes that the CSF function be reduced to a clear corrective steering function (page 2-3) with a short intervention duration. CAT A, CAT B1, and CAT B2 are the only stand-alone functions. CAT C, CAT D and CAT E shall only be available in the combination with a CAT B1/B2 as explained on page 4. Every system combination with B2 is for “highway*” use only.

(*: means a road as explained in 5.6.1.2.1. of the document ACSF-06-28)

(EC): we have to consider, that “hands off” is not a part of the discussion here. We should discuss it with WP.1.
(D): at the moment, there is no clear requirement, that “hands on” is mandated.
(OICA): we should clarify the boundaries between CSF and ACSF.
(Chair J): J does not forbit “hands off”
(UK): Has some reservations with regards to a “hands off” system, as the driver has to control the vehicle.
(F): we have to find a solution with regards to vehicles, which are homologated according CSF. ACSF should monitor the attentiveness of the driver and not the activity.
(D): this is a discussion, we had several times before. We can only measure the activity, but not the attentiveness of the driver. This must vary between the different CATs.
(UK): has found a comment in a UK document, that the driver should have the hands on the steering wheel. We should be sure, that, if we discuss a CAT B2 system, that the system must be “robust” enough. We have to have a clear boundary between CSF and ACSF.
(EC): reminds the delegates to the content of the Convention on Road traffic Vienna 1968 ( in the following “VC”), that the driver has to control the vehicle.
(Chair-D): We have to consider, that the wording in the VC is nearly 60 yrs old. As the driver is switching on the system, he is controlling this. We should avoid to mention “hands on” or “hands off” in the regulation. By the way: The Reg. 79 requires no steering “wheel” and there is also no § in the VC that says “hands on”
(Chair-J): If we look at a ACC system, where the driver has “foot off”, this is also not in contradiction with the VC.
(SE): shares the view of Chair-D. Is the VC the limitation we are discussing?
(Chair-D): we do not allow other tasks.

ACSF-06-15 | UN R79 ACSF discussion paper on major issues